Wilkins v. Ellett, Administrator was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in a federal prison. The case arose when a prisoner, Wilkins, was held in a federal prison in Virginia and sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court. The state court granted the writ, but the federal government argued that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal power, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to imprison individuals. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right, and that the state court should not be allowed to interfere with the federal government's power to imprison individuals. The Court's decision in Wilkins v. Ellett, Administrator was an important ruling in the development of federalism in the United States. The decision established that the federal government had the power to imprison individuals, and that the state courts did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to do so. The decision also established that the writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right, and that the state courts should not be allowed to interfere with the federal government's power to imprison individuals.

In Wilkins v. Ellett, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a non-resident of that state against another non-resident in regards to property located within the state. The majority opinion held that such jurisdiction did exist and affirmed the decision of the lower court. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Field argued that there was no basis for granting jurisdiction to a foreign court over two parties who were not residents of its own territory or connected with it in any way other than through their ownership of property situated therein. He further noted that if this principle were accepted as valid then every State would have authority to regulate transactions between citizens and non-citizens which occurred outside its borders but involved real estate located within them; something he believed Congress alone should be able to do under Article IV Section 3 of the Constitution. Ultimately, Field concluded that while states may possess certain powers concerning land situated within their boundaries they cannot exercise those powers beyond what is necessary for local purposes and must yield when confronted with matters involving interstate commerce or international relations which are reserved exclusively for federal control